Feh...another flat wasteland with a bunch of rocks

[grooble]

These raw images are as good as they are going to get. The coloured ones are FAKE, some guy just runs it through photoshop, come on!<br /><br />"What is your explanation for the drainage systems? Are the formed by runoff or sapping? Is the dark area a sea? Is it wet or dry? Is the dark material a residue of the sea or has it frozen over? Why are some of the channels and "offshore" features so linear? What causes the topography? Why are the pebbles rounded? Is it due to weathering, sublimation or erosion? Have they been transported? If so, by what? "<br /><br />Maybe if the image quality was better they'd know the answer to these questions.<br /><br /><br />

 

[JonClarke]

Slappy, I am goping to say something I don't say very often on these boards. You are a fool. if you really had any knowledge of science, academia, or R&D you would not write what you write.<br /><br />Huygens cost 3 billion? No, the whole Cassini mission cost 3 billion. Huygens cost 400 million. Check your facts before you write.<br /><br />The mission has been a triumph for everybody. The probe has functioned perfectly. The data loss, despite human error, was minor. The pictures alone a full of a weath of information that will keep people busy for years. Then there is the wealth of other data on chemistry, atmospheric structure, dynamics, composition, temperature and other parameters. This again will be yielding data for years to come. <br /><br />When the PIs go to their funding bodies for further funding I expect them to get it. People like you who think it is a failure don't know a thing about space missions, research or science. It is also clear you are not actually interested in the mission, otherwise you would recognise your ignorance and be staggered by what we can see even in the raw images. <br /><br />I have no idea of what motivates you. It might be ignorance combined with unreal expectations. It might be a desire try and belittle people who actually achieve something extraordinary. Matbe something else. But if you shut up you might learn something.<br /><br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[bobvanx]

Okay, to show my solidarity with Jon, I'll commit my first bonafide ad hominem.<br /><br />I agree, Slappy is a fool. Let's send him and his Wal*Mart camera on the next Titan probe so we can get better pictures. How much food and oxygen does a fool and his camera consume during a ten-year trip?<br /><br />Would we have to be ethical and provide a method for a return trip?

 

[slappymcb]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Huygens itsself cost 250,000 pounds ($465,000 today)<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Try adding three zeroes to that ( http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/cassini_esa_040629.html ). They probably spent $465,000 just in catering fees for the organizational committee to establish the design committee to create the procedure to document the design process. <br /><br />JonClarke -- people aren't commenting about the moon's features because the issue here is ESA forgetting to include a camera to take surface photos, so they had to use the low-res side camera that wasn't designed for the surface. And <i>that</i> is the first impression the public gets of the results, and leads to their reaction "Why didn't you think to install a better camera??"<br /><br />You people relying on this magical "photo processing" you think will add detail to those tiny surface photos and prove us all wrong will be sorely disappointed, so you'd better start preparing for it now. You can filter all you want and interpolate all you want and cover over those ugly compression artifacts and stitch photos together, but you can't add missing data. They'll be just as blurry as they are now. <br /><br />JonClarke, the apparent "engineering challenges" you list for a camera on a probe are just silly. I'm not sure what country you're from, but in the U.S. and Europe and elsewhere there are commercial companies -- let's not even mention the military -- running low-power cameras in satellites that "cope with hard radiation," "operate at obscenely low temperatures" and resolve 0.25m - 0.5m objects in color from well over 100km away (I worked at one... Orbital Sciences). And Huygens didn't have to transmit "billions of km," because it uploaded to Cassini. And if you think low light, fog, mist and rain is an issue, our military's night vision HUDs and goggles, and certainl

 

[kaisern]

I wholehearted agree with Slappy. He clearly has experience working for government or on government projects, as do I (I'm a computer scientist working for the Department of Defense). The way he explained the funding issue is EXACTLY what will happen, as it should. Let's all remember, folks, that the money that made this happen came out of taxpayers' pockets, and elected officials will want to see HARD, CLEAR results, not blurry pictures and some atmospheric readings.<br /><br />When the Titan researchers go before Congress again for further funding, it's going to be a hard sell. As Slappy said, when they throw up that postage stamp blurry picture of some "fist-sized" rocks (or is it ice? Because the picture is so awful, we can't tell), they'll be run out on a rail--and understandably so. Funding is not limitless. Money dedicated to one project cuts something else. As such, there needs to be JUSTIFICATION. Your sell has to be CONVINCING. Hi res pictures would have gone a long way in that regard, but, alas, somehow that was overlooked.<br /><br />I understand much of what we're saying is controversial, and I know many of you don't like it, but what we're saying is not PERSONAL, so please let's not make it personal. Please refrain from calling people whose opinions differ from yours "fools." That's uncalled for.<br /><br />And to those who say my picture is terrible--that's the point. I purposefully put a lousy picture up to make a point. Specifically, a crappy picture taken at night with a cheap Walmart camera is better than those ridiculous Huygens images. Is the lighting good? No, of course not. It's a street lamp. Are the colors represented well? No, they're not. BUT YOU CAN CLEARLY MAKE OUT WHAT"S IN THE PICTURE!<br /><br />You can't do that with the Huygens photos.<br /><br />People are crazy about those photos: "That MIGHT be a river! That MIGHT be a sea!" Well we already knew there MIGHT be rivers and seas on Titan. We wanted some answers, folks, not ju

 

[serak_the_preparer]

SlappyMcB, Kaisern, and others disappointed by the Huygens pictures -<br /><br />Your disappointment is understandable. A standard has been set by pictures returned from Mars, the Moon and other places which Huygens apparently has not met. Given the high price-tag, you're left wondering: Why?<br /><br />Perhaps ESA has somehow dropped the ball and used unaccountably poor imaging equipment. But there are also other possibilities. There is the possibility the ESA scientists wanted the very best data and pictures which could be obtained under the conditions using the best technology available to them. Astrophoto and Centsworth_II have mentioned the test images taken by the DISR were of better quality than what we've seen so far from Huygens on Titan. This lends support to the second possibility and also points to what might be an explanation:<br /><br />Perhaps the determining factor is actually Titan itself?<br /><br />This is what I myself suspect. As I wrote on the Cassini/Huygens Mission Update Thread, others who have suggested we might be witnessing precipitation on Titan's surface are making a very valid point. This is something scientists have long suspected, and hints of liquid on the surface now indicate they may have been right all along. If precipitation is involved, and there is fog as well, then right there you may have your explanation for the condition of the images.<br /><br />Your interest in this great moment in the history of science is commendable. And there is nothing illegitimate about your questions. Neither is there anything wrong with waiting for the answers, as ESA and NASA are far from finished with their work on Huygens. If there has been some awful blunder regarding the images, those scientists with an investment in the quality of the images will doubtless raise similar questions and an explanation will have to be provided. Channel A was los

 

[claywoman]

Serak....<br /><br />thank you for these words...I find each and every glimpse and image unimaginable....Its going to take it a while to sink in that this is a world we've never, ever seen before!<br /><br />The picture you classified as your favorite is breathtaking! Your explanation and the other explanations are very viable and I hope this negativity never gets back to the people that worked their hearts out getting these to us!!! I have nothing but praise for them, most have given up their lives for these glimpses given us...<br /><br />I can't wait until some of the data is analyzed so we can find out whatever they've learned....I'm excited, I guess because I probably won't live to see the next Titan landing. I don't think I have ten years left to live....So this may be all I have so I'm so very thankful for what I have...

 

[centsworth_II]

bobvanx, <br /><br />How dare you and Jonclarke single Slappy out as a fool....<br /><br />When there are others at least equally qualified for this distiction such as kaisern and grooble.<br /><br />My own take is that they are trolls and if I feel I need to respond to something they say, I will keep it short, so as not to waste too much time on them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<i>"Huygens itsself cost 250,000 pounds ($465,000 today)" -- centsworth<br />"Try adding three zeroes to that." -- SlappyMcB</i><br /><br />Thanks. I've edited my post to make the correction.<br /><br />As to the rest of your post, I have no comment. (See my previous post.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<i>"When the Titan researchers go before Congress again for further funding, it's going to be a hard sell." -- kaisern</i><br /><br />Nobody with any interest in exploring the solar system can fail to put Titan at the top of the list <b>based on the panoramic images from huygens.</b> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Grooble<br /><br />You don’t understand image processing if you think the raw images are as good as it gets. Digital stacking of the post touch down images should ring out more detail. As for the colour images, they are not fake. They have been colourised using spectral information from the spectrometer. This is completely legitimate and justifiable. I strongly suggest you use terms other than “fake” for this, as it implies deliberate dishonesty.<br /><br />Even if the resolution were 10 times better we still would not immediately know what we are looking at. We need to understand what we are seeing before we can interpret what we see. We don’t know what we are seeing yet. We have never seen the surface of an ice world with a thick atmosphere before, so how can we know? To understand will take time, and require not just the lander images, marvellous though they are, but the data from spectrometers, Cassini flyby IR and radar data, the whole works. Maybe you are too young to remember when we first saw the surface of a really alien world. Halley’s comment from Giotto, Europa or Triton with Voyager, Venus with Venera and Magellan. We saw lots of amazing stuff, but did not understand it. People grossly under estimate how hard it is top understand something as alien as this, or how much it takes to extract information out of the data. People are still publishing papers on new understandings from Mariner 6 and 7 flybys of Mars in 1969.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Slappy<br /><br />Your inflation of the cost of Huygens is risible, you have no evidence for it whatsoever. There is no comparison between the Hugyens imaging system and any of the shelf system, whether satellite or military because they are designed to different objectives. Saying that the Hugyens imaging system should be able to perform in according to your arbitary standard is equally ridiculous, unless you know the objectives, operational constraints and mission parameters. Do you? I suspect you don’t, otherwise you would not compare the resolution of the Huygens system with that of military reconnaissance satellites that mass 40 times more and whose goals are completely different, even if you did work for “Orbital Sciences”. ESA did not blunder, they have pulled off a staggering achievement that will keep scientists happy for years to come. It you don’t like it, that is your problem, not mine, and certainly not ESAs. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Kaisern<br /><br />Since the Huygens instruments are from Europe with minor input from US researchers I doubt they will have to appear before your congress. You also seem to be under the impression that it is all about images. Wrong, the images are just a small part of the many investigations carried out by this mission. There are six major experiments. Even the DSIR system is not simply about pictures, it is also collected spectral information about the surface in visible and IR wavelengths, measured cloud and aerosol properties, and visible and IR radiation intensities. Given the fact we can reasonably expect dozens papers in leading journals (e.g. Nature, Science, JGR, Icarus etc.) in the next few years on the six major science experiments (some of which consist of no fewer than 9 different sensors) there is going to be no problem whatsoever in justify this mission. I suggest you keep your eyes peeled for these results, if you read the literature, that is.<br /><br />If I was unfair in calling people fools, I apologise. It is sometimes difficult to differentiate between the person and the opinion, even the wise can sometimes make very foolish statements.<br /><br />You complete miss the point about the comment on rivers and seas. These were theoretical possibilities. We now, thanks to this superb machine, some geomorphic information at high resolution that allows us to test these possibilities. Maybe we are seeing rivers and seas, maybe we are seeing something else, some phenomenon of an ice world with a dense atmosphere of which we have no knowledge. It takes a lot of research to understand a landscape so completely alien. Huygens will answer some questions – and throw up more questions. That is how science works. Maybe you are too young to remember the perplexity with which the channels on Mars were greeted after Mariner 9. Thirty four years later we still don’t understand these features fully, despite a more data from many missions and the fact that Mars <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<i>"...even the wise can sometimes make very foolish statements." -- Jonclarke</i><br /><br />It is the unwise that repeat the same statements over and over again when faced with contrary evidence. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

It's always worth a try the first few times. People may be simply unknowing. I hope people do the same to me. And I HAVE had to explain astrobiology to a farmer, when getting permission to access sites on their land. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Since the Huygens instruments are from Europe with minor input from US researchers I doubt they will have to appear before your congress.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />One minor correction....<br /><br />The Descent Imager/Spectral Radiometer that made all those pictures was built by JPL, under contract to ESA. I believe it is generally considered the biggest single contribution to Huygens by the US (besides delivery of the probe itself to Titan). I'm pretty sure there's one other JPL-provided instrument, but I don't recall it off the top of my head and I can't seem to find the website where I found the information before. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[kaisern]

Jon:<br /><br />In response to:<br /><br />"Your views are not so much unpopular as ill informed. Condemning the rich harvest of twenty years labour is uncalled for."<br /><br />First, I have not condemned the "rich harvest of twenty years' labor." I have repeatedly lauded the achievement in multiple previous posts. What I am expressing is my disappointment in the failure to return clear, discernable images.<br /><br />Also, I never asserted that the mission was all about imagery. Again, please read my previous posts. I understand we gathered great scientific data about the atmosphere, weather, wind strength, chemical composition, etc; however, I am interested in a full-fledged exploration of Titan. That costs money. That needs to be justified. In other words, it has to be SOLD. If you have the finest product in the world but your promotion material and advertising are poor, guess what--chances are, your great product will not sell. On the other hand, if you have a substandard product but excellent advertising and/or marketing, your product WILL sell. Just take a look at all the junk sold on infomercials.<br /><br />Science, whether we like it or not, must be MARKETED. That means we need some knock-your-socks-off results--eye candy. Something to LOOK at! That's what the public wants, and understandably so. The public wants to know where $3.4 billion dollars went, and to the lay person, those blurry images and a bunch of atmospheric readings DON'T CUT IT!<br /><br />Also, I would like you to explain to me how my opinions are "ill informed." What about my assertion that the Huygens mission planners should have placed more emphasis on quality imaging is "ill informed"? Incidentally, what or who makes you the authority?

 

[nacnud]

The only people that a follow on mission should be sold to are the research councils that allocate funding to ESA from various countries. I think that it should be the scientists that decide where to spend money allocated to them not politicians or the public wanting pictures.<br /><br />The money should follow the science, not the headlines.<br />

 

[serak_the_preparer]

<i>I find each and every glimpse and image unimaginable....Its going to take it a while to sink in that this is a world we've never, ever seen before!</i><br /><br />Exactly. America, the West, and really the whole world have moved into <i>now</i>, with yesterday being old news, what might happen a few years from now being of little concern, and what's happening right this minute taking precedence over other concerns. A sort of 'What have you done for me lately?' attitude. It makes me realize how old I really am, because this attitude suits me not at all. From where I stand (well, okay, from where I sit), the past is of tremendous importance - how else does our species learn from its mistakes, make progress, and build a better civilization? And the future is even more important - only the future can judge us, and it is better for that judgment to be that we left a legacy of which we could be proud rather than one of which we should be ashamed.<br /><br />As I've just said, I'm getting old. : (<br /><br />Why did I just write all that? Lots of reasons, but in this case mainly to point out that what I think we need most is a little patience. Planning, hard work, bringing results to fruition - this all requires something too many of us have begun to regard as a ridiculous obstacle: time. With respect to Huygens and Titan, a little waiting isn't going to hurt us - rather, it will give us even more exciting results.<br /><br /><i>The picture you classified as your favorite is breathtaking! Your explanation and the other explanations are very viable and I hope this negativity never gets back to the people that worked their hearts out getting these to us!!! I have nothing but praise for them....</i><br /><br />I agree; this is a time to be positive and to relish a great success. Fighting and arguing is something we humans do very well, but now Huygens has revealed to us something else we do very well. It would be nice to focus on that for a change, just for a little whil

 

[astrophoto]

Seeing the way the general American press handled the landing I am worried about funding and how the 'average Joe' takes this. I watched CBS, NBC and Fox News and I was ready to commend them for making it a big deal -- dont know if it was a slow newsday but they mostly carried the ESA meeting live, showed the pictures ASAP, etc. The problem was they were all practically laughing. Fox News was particularly harsh - but it happened to coincide with Shep Smith, a notoriously un-journalistic slaphappy commentor. I am worried that the press opinion either echoes the general sentiment (NASA spent all that money for THAT?) or that the press opinion influenced the regular people into thinking it was insignificant and wasteful.<br /><br />As much as you hardliners want to completely dismiss the 'fools' on these boards, they probably more accurately represent the regular tax-payer and the average member of Congress.

 

[grooble]

When are the processed images released?

 

[kaisern]

In response to...<br /><br />The only people that a follow on mission should be sold to are the research councils that allocate funding to ESA from various countries. I think that it should be the scientists that decide where to spend money allocated to them not politicians or the public wanting pictures.<br /><br />Hmmmmmm....'fraid not. We live in a free society, not the old Soviet Union. The money that paid for Cassini? It's yours and mine--not the government's or the scientists'. It came out of our pockets, not the scientists'. Therefore, we have the right to voice our displeasure over how a mission was planned or executed.<br /><br />Moreover, our elected officials (politicians) represent us in our government. It is their DUTY to make sure our tax dollars are not wasted on boondoggle projects (not saying that Cassini was a boondoggle...so don't jump on me). Now the politicians don't always carry out their duties properly, but it is their duty anyway.<br /><br />Had the scientists come to the people and said, "We want to spend $3.4 billion of your tax dollars to study the atmosphere of Titan, the rings of Saturn, and the impact craters on a bunch of large rock moons," the public would say, "Get bent!" However, if the scientists came to the public and said, "We want to send a probe to Saturn that will dispatch a second probe to Titan, a moon the size of a planet with an atmosphere and rivers and seas...a place where LIFE might exist!" the public would be much more inclined to say, "OK! Go for it!"<br /><br />Hmmm...wait...I think that WAS their sales pitch. Too bad they didn't make good.

 

[nacnud]

Rubbish. <br /><br />There is only certain proportion of money given to scientific research each year. The government decides how much to allocate to each area, medical, space, etc. From there on I think that it should be up to the scientist involved in those areas of research to decide what to spend the money on. So long as the process is open and fair.<br /><br />Let those who are doing the research decide what is needed.<br /><br />That seems to be a far more democratic process that just keeping the media happy.<br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I wonder how much of the Cassini-Huygens' budget was spent paying salaries and retainers to project staff while the probe cruised for years between Jupiter and Saturn? I don't know the answer, and I ask it in a nonperjorative way. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That's a very good question. It would be interesting to know. Certainly you need to keep a decent set of engineers on staff; they have to keep the spacecraft healthy during its flight. And there will be some science conducted during the long cruise phase.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Perhaps this probe that sampled Titan's atmosphere extensively and perhaps to the detriment of the imagery might facilitate future missions to the Saturn system in that hotter trajectories might be contemplated assuming a well understood Titanian atmosphere as an aerobrake possibility. Decreasing travel time might reduce the cost of the future missions.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Actually, I doubt that entry was a concern in determining travel time. After all, probes have survived considerably more hostile entries. (The Galileo Probe, for instance.) The main constraint was probably the technology for getting it there, not for surviving arrival. There's only so fast you can get a spacecraft of that mass to go using a Titan IV. So speeding it up will probably depend more on new propulsion technologies, not new entry technologies. And those new propulsion technologies are on their way. You are quite correct that shortening the mission can save some money (though of course it also costs money). It may also reduce risk, since the spacecraft doesn't have to survive as long, which may be a bigger factor in the long run. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[pathfinder_01]

All in all I think the images are wonderful, but I also think that ESA could have handled the publicity better. I think ESA should have done more expectation management. As a space enthusiast I can understand why the images don’t look like the MER images.<br /><br /> Try taking pictures in extremely low light levels, fog, while parachuting in an unknown environment and transmitting them on the fly with less than a 33.6 modem. To top all that off, you are not even sure at what attitude does the smog end and what you will land in. Hard rock? Methane Sea? Tar?<br /><br />The rovers don’t have to deal with smog or fog, can store images onboard, can take much longer to transmit them, are operating in a much better known environment, and if all else fails can retake the pictures with new settings if need be. I think the general public expected more and they expected the pictures to be released as they came in. <br /><br /><br /> I just wish that the Cassini mission was done like PioneerVenus with a separate multiprobe bus spacecraft. I would love to have a Galieo type atmosphric probe for saturn and two or three Huygens type probes for titan so that we could have something to compare the current images with. I would also love to have gathered more than 30 mins worth of surface data, but what we have is a LOT better than nothing.<br />